I propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?
Is this an initial contract purely looking at risk reduction?
I am very excited by this design effort for multiple reasons:Back in the day when I was a junior engineer in my early 20's, my first "real" job was on the F-1A engine. Someplace I have pictures of me standing beside a test article but I've no idea where they are. I've looked everywhere I can think of with no joy. One day, while looking for something else, I will happen across them. It always happens that way.Not only will this be an excellent LRB for the SLS, but with an appropriate upper stage it will make a really nice launch vehicle in its own right, even possibly being able to loft Orion into LEO.As a result, we may actually see the 1.5 launch architecture that Griffin tried to create, an approach I actually liked, but not with solids. If the political realities had not unequivocally mandated the use of the Shuttle SRB, DIRECT may have looked a lot more like AJAX, using 2 pairs of the Atlas CCBs. This SLS combination would "look like" DIRECT (or even Ares-V) but use the AJAX's concept of LRBs.The LRB boosted SLS would be the safest and most capable, efficient and cost effective approach to creating an HLV launch system. While I have great respect for ATK's Shuttle SRB and its flight history, I have always been distrustful of ever using solids on a manned launch vehicle. They have a great potential to leak and cannot be shut down to facilitate an abort. There is no guarantee that the thrust curve will follow its design parameter. They may be fine at liftoff and then go seriously bad. Once they are lit on the ground it is do or die, with no in between. At least Shuttle's SRB's were recovered and inspected after use, so you always knew that it had been successfully fired before. Not so with the new ones for SLS. They cannot be test fired or verified. Every launch will be a first time use with no history, a real crap shoot.
Quote from: winkhomewinkhome on 08/17/2013 10:28 pmI propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?Not likely. The SRB is mandated for Block-1. ATK will fix it, one way or another.
Grumble--this is a very troubling post. Who pays to make the 5-seg (already obsolete) "legacy" booster work? ..and for how many missions?I've said before the 1B variant is the most likely should this beast ever fly.Now there is legit reason to loudly question the direction of the path currently charted. Resources should be directed to the (eventual) solution since the time-lines more likely closely overlap now...Quote from: clongton on 08/17/2013 11:12 pmQuote from: winkhomewinkhome on 08/17/2013 10:28 pmI propose the following question - if ATK continues to have difficulties with casting booster segments, and Dynetics continues to make great progress with the LRB concept/test articles - might NASA opt to jump the shark right to LRB?Not likely. The SRB is mandated for Block-1. ATK will fix it, one way or another.
I had no idea any contracts for the Advanced Boosters were even awarded as of yet let alone test articles being built. Is this an initial contract purely looking at risk reduction?I love the idea of F-1 based LRBs.